Countering Biden’s Gender Play
At CNN’s Democratic debate on March 15, even the moderators were stunned when Joe Biden, out of the blue, pledged to pick a woman as his running mate. It was a calculated move designed to put President Trump in a box, while embarrassing Bernie Sanders for his reluctance to do likewise.
Biden is vulnerable with women voters, with videos documenting his groping of women and girls. But his female running mate will try to deflect this issue by going on the offensive, as Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar proved they are capable of doing.
Biden hopes to make gender a top issue in the presidential race this fall, even more so than last time. In addition to picking a woman for vice president, Biden also promised to appoint “the first black woman” to the Supreme Court.
So many important matters are dictated by courts that the issue of future Supreme Court nominations may decide the upcoming presidential election.
Upcoming High Court rulings on three major gender- related issues no doubt influenced Biden’s strategy to play the gender card. Each case could yield a 5-4 decision that will drop like a bombshell in the presidential campaign.
In one case, the Court will decide whether states can require abortionists to comply with basic standards requiring them to be available for follow-up on their complications. Oral argument on March 4 did not go as well as feminists hoped, and a divided ruling could inject abortion into the fall presidential debates.
In another case, the Court will decide whether the federal law that bans discrimination “on account of sex” should also prohibit discrimination on account of sexual preference. In a third case, the Court will decide if “sex” means biological sex, as everyone thought it did when Congress passed the law, or whether sex now includes gender expression or transition to the opposite sex.
No matter how the Court rules in these cases, Joe Biden will use them to invoke feminist theories about gender. But misusing the courts to change the meaning of our written law is the essence of judicial activism, which Republicans rightly oppose.
Biden may even toss in his support for the failed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which also contains the loaded phrase “on account of sex.” A president has no role in amending the Constitution, but ERA was the final point of contention between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter during their only debate in 1980.
Reagan was fully prepared to address this issue, and defended his opposition to ERA well. Rather than amend the Constitution, Reagan said, ERA supporters could have worked on revising any discriminatory laws.
In fact, ERA would invalidate the Violence Against Women Act which Joe Biden brags that he wrote and passed in 1994. Gender distinctions would not be allowed in any federal or state law if ERA were to become part of the Constitution, as Biden seeks.
In 2000 the Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutional Biden’s handiwork in trying to extend federal jurisdiction, in United States v. Morrison. But ERA would vastly expand federal mischief over gender.
Biden himself was the vice president for eight years, and before that he was in the U.S. Senate for decades. While there he cast many votes which are totally out of sync with today’s progressive Democratic party, not to mention the populist coalition that elected President Trump.
Joe Biden presided over the Clarence Thomas hearings, and it was Biden himself who voted to send the nomination to the floor of the Senate without a recommendation. Justice Thomas has served with distinction for nearly three decades ever since, yet Biden has never apologized for allowing that proceeding to become a “high-tech lynching” as Thomas accurately described it.
Among numerous other examples, Trump or his running mate could cite the brutal kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 16-year-old girl in Texas by an illegal alien, Humberto Leal Garcia. Garcia was tried and sentenced to death, but the Obama Administration, with Biden as Vice President, attempted to intervene for Garcia.
Justice was then delayed for 17 years as the Obama- Biden Administration tried to prevent the execution of the illegal alien Garcia for brutally raping and killing the young girl. Her nude body was found next to a massive rock used to smash her face to death, and a stick protruded from her dead body.
Garcia denied his guilt until he was strapped to the gurney in a Texas death chamber, after the state ultimately overcame the obstruction by the Obama-Biden Administration. The illegal alien Garcia then admitted his guilt and apologized, a minute before he was justly given the lethal injection.
Early Voting Prolonged Democrats’ Primary Fight
A prolonged primary fight is harmful for the Democrat or Republican Parties, because it fractures the base and alienates the supporters of candidates not picked. Neither major party has had a protracted, contested nominating convention since 1952, and neither party wants one.
The modern presidential primary system has made a brokered convention unlikely. While some candidates establish themselves as frontrunners for a nomination, other candidates drop out and voters then coalesce around a few candidates, and ultimately the nominee.
The staggering of the primaries should have a salutary winnowing effect. After a few primaries the more popular candidates become clear, and eventually one of them secures enough delegates to ride into his party’s convention as the nominee and the flagbearer for the party in the general election.
But pervasive “early voting” undermines this process, leaving a hodgepodge of too many candidates continuing to win votes after they ceased being serious contenders. By mailing thousands of ballots weeks before primary day in a particular state, its voters then choose among many candidates who will drop out prior to the primary day in that state.
California, the biggest prize of all, listed about a half- dozen people on its ballot who dropped out of the race before the election. Yet California Democrats mailed their ballots in early, well before the primary election day in that state, and voted for candidates who had dropped out by the time of the in-person voting.
Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar all withdrew from the race on the eve of Super Tuesday in early March, when the California primary was held. But combined, they received about ten percent of the vote, which was more than the margin by which Bernie Sanders defeated Joe Biden in that delegate-rich state.
Four million votes, including 1.6 million in California, were cast early by Democrat primary voters prior to Super Tuesday, and many were upset when the candidate for whom they voted abruptly pulled out prior to the in- person voting on that Tuesday, March 3. Their early ballots failed to influence the process toward an early conclusion.
Political commentators expected the race among the Democrats to narrow by the time Californians cast their ballot, and it did with Joe Biden winning by a landslide in South Carolina. But early voting frustrates an efficient, timely process of elimination, and it is unclear whom the early voters would have preferred among a narrower field of candidates.
The results from California were also delayed, thanks again to this disastrous early voting. It takes time to tally mail- in votes, and in a general election the votes from California continue to be counted for weeks after Election Day.
Some Democrats, recognizing the self-inflicted harm caused by this process of early voting, told each other not to cast ballots early in primaries. Democrat leadership does not want a brokered convention, or a repeat of their fiasco in Iowa when results were delayed.
“Sure, I’d wait,” said Darry Sragow, an experienced California campaign manager, in explaining why he prefers not to vote early in a primary. “If one of the candidates trips up three days before the primary and I already cast my vote, I’m gonna regret it.”
Regret it indeed, particularly if the candidate for whom one voted drops out, or changes his position in an unacceptable way, or commits an unforgivable gaffe. In each of those situations the early voter who cast his ballot for that candidate is stuck.
It is cost-prohibitive to allow early voters to change their ballots prior to the election, and yet voting rights would seem to require that. After all, a juror can change his vote before a verdict is rendered, and the change will be recognized.
A traditional election, without thousands or millions of mailed-in early ballots, yields results on the night of the election. But time for delivering and opening mail causes weeks to go by before final results can be tallied and announced for early voting in a high-turnout election, causing chaos and a loss in public confidence.
Despite this, some political consultants tell people to vote early. One argument is that people should vote early in case they die before Election Day, which is not an issue for most voters and such ballots are not even counted in some states. The result of the early voting may have been to prolong the contest among Democrats, causing the candidates to spend money against each other rather than trying to win in November. By promoting early voting and insisting on proportional voting, the Democrat Party has created a system whereby it compels its own candidates to exhaust their campaign dollars criticizing each other.
Bernie Scares Even Liberal Dems
“Crazy Bernie,” President Trump calls the 78-year- old junior senator from tiny Vermont, and the nickname does not describe a harmless oddball. Senator Sanders’ success has frightened the financial kingmakers in the Democratic party.
When Bernie refused to apologize for praising the communist dictators of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, Democratic insiders got alarmed at the prospect of losing Florida, home to thousands of refugees from those countries. Since Bernie won by a landslide in Nevada, full panic set in.
Two high-profile Democrat contenders pulled out within hours of each other after the South Carolina primary, to endorse Bernie’s rival, Joe Biden. That was not a mere coincidence, but the result of an apparent behind-the-scenes effort to stop Bernie from obtaining the nomination.
“Quid pro quo!” Trump bellowed at a rally in North Carolina in response. Rather than investigate non- existent collusion by Russia for Trump, someone should investigate what may have been promised to the other contenders to abruptly withdraw and endorse Biden.
But millions had already voted early, prior to this sudden transformation of the Democrat primary into a two-man race between Bernie and Biden. This prevented the Democrat Establishment from completely derailing Bernie’s candidacy quickly, as he continued to attract crowds surpassed only by Trump himself.
On March 1 Bernie drew audiences totaling 25,000 in California, which is the biggest prize in delegate numbers, and young voters there are particularly enthusiastic about Bernie’s quasi-revolutionary message. In the state having an enormous gap between rich and poor, Bernie’s attacks on billionaires play exceptionally well.
Liberal Democrats have only themselves to blame for the pickle they find themselves in. They stoked the flames of class warfare to try to bring down Trump, and instead fomented a problem within their own party.
The rejection of Sanders by older black voters is the only impediment that kept him from winning the nomination. Sanders had greater initial success with Hispanics than with African Americans, and no one has fully explained why.
Pundits pretend that Biden inherits support by blacks for Obama, for whom Biden served as Vice President for eight years. But that was years ago and it is unlikely that many voters care for whom Biden carried water in the White House.
Instead, illegal immigration is probably a major reason for the immense divide in support for Sanders, both racially and geographically. Black voters in South Carolina are not likely to support Sanders’ aggressive agenda to open our southern border and let hordes of low-income workers come in.
Latinos are more enthusiastic about Bernie’s demand that driver’s licenses be given nationwide to illegal aliens, and that the spigot be turned on for more entitlements to flow to them. Bernie swept Nevada after pandering to illegals in a way that does not sell so well to Democrats of any race in the South.
More difficult to explain is why liberal elites in the Northeast turned so sharply against Bernie, hammering him with disparaging comments. Bernie’s policies are what these other Leftists have themselves advocated for years.
But Bernie really means it, and that seems to alarm those who advocated similar policies merely to attract votes against Republicans. Bernie intends to go after billionaires and Wall Street and crony capitalism, from which many liberals derive their wealth.
The inability of billionaires to make a difference in the race may be disconcerting to the power-brokers behind the curtain. Tom Steyer spent over $250 million of his own fortune on his campaign and yet did not win a single delegate.
Bernie, in contrast, raised $34.5 Million in the fourth quarter, with an average donation of only $18.53, plus $25 million in January and another $46 million in February. The have-nots fueled his candidacy, and the Democrat Establishment wants the votes of his supporters but not Bernie himself.
The most common occupation of Bernie’s donors is “teacher,” and the U.S. Postal Service is one of his donors’ most common employers. Wal-Mart, which has a non- unionized workforce thought to be conservative-leaning, is another common employer of Sanders donors.
The small average donation means that Sanders can raise far more from his same supporters if necessary. He has warned the Democrat Party not to unfairly deny him the nomination.
Sanders raised more from small donors than Joe Biden did from large ones. Meanwhile, Mike Bloomberg tried to use his personal wealth to vastly outspend Sanders, but that did not translate into enough votes or delegates for Bloomberg.
The result has been a delightful quandary from the perspective of Republicans. The nomination of Sanders would have paved the way to a recapture of the House of Representatives by the GOP in November, while the nomination of Biden will make his long record of gaffes and liberal votes fair game to campaign against.
Virginia Liberals Embrace Gambling and Gun Control
Boosted by pro-gun-control millions of dollars in donations by Mike Bloomberg in the last election, newly empowered liberals in Virginia extended their legislative session the first weekend in March. They enacted sweeping gun control and also broad expansions of gambling, which is backwards from what would help enhance prosperity and freedom.
It will soon be legal in Virginia to bet on football games and other sporting events, except for contests involving Virginia college teams. This unleashes a new, costly addiction for the millions of sports fans in the state, who can soon waste their family savings in addition to their precious time.
A misguided ruling by the Supreme Court in 2018 opened the floodgates to the legalization of sports gambling by states, but many states have wisely declined the invitation. Studies have shown that the poor are hurt most by legalized gambling, and they are the least able to afford it.
The Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA ignored the obvious vices of legalized sports gambling, which range from corrupting the games to causing people to lose their savings. While justice is supposed to be blind, it should not be blind to the immense harm caused by decisions like this one.
The Court observed that “gambling was largely banned throughout the country” by the end of the 19th century, but then omitted the reasons why. Its corruption of politics was one reason, and gambling will surely corrupt sports, too.
For this reason the NCAA, which governs college sports, has long opposed gambling on its games. “The NCAA opposes all forms of legal and illegal sports wagering, which has the potential to undermine the integrity of sports contests and jeopardizes the student- athletes and the intercollegiate athletics community.”
Families, already fed up with how Thanksgiving Day and Christmas have become rituals of senseless watching of football games, can expect financial losses now, too. In California, Indian tribes are gathering signatures on petitions to put sports gambling at tribal casinos throughout the state on its ballot in November.
Professional sports leagues used to be strongly opposed to allowing gambling on their games, but greed has led them to search for more sources of revenue, and gambling has that allure. People who bet on games are more likely to watch them, and that may help stem the general decline in television ratings.
The scandal of the Houston Astros’ stealing signs to help them win the World Series a few years back should be sobering enough. Yet Major League Baseball stands now with the NFL and NBA in wanting people gambling on their games.
A total of 15 states currently allow some form of sports gambling, and five other states plus the District of Columbia have passed laws to legalize it. There appears to be a race to the bottom as states compete with each other in facilitating the massive waste of time and money by their residents which such gambling entails.
The Democrat-controlled Virginia legislature also authorized casinos for nearly a half-dozen cities in Virginia, including its state capital of Richmond, provided their residents approve in local referenda. With gambling interests vastly outspending the opposition, it will be difficult for pro-family groups to keep the casinos out of these Virginia towns.
No one keeps statistics about how many young men drop out of school or quit their jobs due to a gambling addiction. But enough of them apparently are for a frequent question to a professional poker player to be something like “I want to quit my job (or school) to become a pro poker player, and I seek advice how.”
Meanwhile, the Democrats pushed through irrational gun control, placing a limit of one handgun purchase per 30 days on even law-abiding citizens. In addition, background checks are extended to include all gun sales, except between family members.
Earlier the same legislature passed a so-called red-flag law to authorize a judge or magistrate to seize anyone’s guns based on allegations about instability of the owner. Second Amendment rights are secure in Virginia now only to the extent the judicial system allows it for an individual.
More than 100 towns in Virginia have responded to the liberal push for gun control there by announcing that they will not comply with the unconstitutional provisions. There has even been talk of rural areas breaking away from the Deep State-controlled northern Virginia, where many of the residents either work for the federal government or make big money lobbying it.